Stop the Bad Vestments!

Vestments belong to the Church. They are a symbol of office, the liturgical year, and the liturgy. They are not personal fashion statements. They are not liturgical accessories. If you understand the liturgical party to be representative of the people gathered, and that the role of those representatives is to be as transparent as possible (meaning, not being a distraction), why would one freely chose to wear vestments that call attention to the individual? The only explanation I have is poor taste, or poor training, or both.

I bring this up because, in my opinion, among the liturgical traditions, Episcopalians are the worse offenders when it comes to poor taste in vestments. By far the absolute worst. And it seems to be a fad that is not passing quietly into the oblivion in which it belongs.

Am I being extreme? Perhaps. But consider this site, Bad Vestments, which is run by a young man, whom I understand was a former Episcopalian.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Now, can anyone tell me what part of the liturgical year YELLOW represents?  I must tell you, this kind of thing is not "cool."  It is not "emergent."  It is just plain embarrassing.

BTW, to those who should know better, blue is an alternative color for Advent.  Purple is appropriate for Lent.  Using those colors during other seasonal times is simply reason to question the quality of  a person's liturgical training.

I will now stop gritting my teeth. 

J.

The Doctor or the Pirate?

I've been avoiding wading too deeply into the Anglican soap opera for awhile, but a recent minor dust up is just too rich to resist.

What's the issue? It's about the battling news stories regarding the presentation by members of the Standing Commis­sion on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) of the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC), which met earlier this month in Canterbury.

One version appeared in the Church Times, and was authored by Simon Sarmiento. Here's part of it:

...The Professor of Liturgics at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, the Revd Dr Ruth Meyers, said on Saturday that the 2009 General Convention had directed the SCLM both to inform, and to invite reflections from, the rest of the Communion. The IALC meeting was an ideal opportunity to discuss the matter.

The Episcopal Church’s request for such a session was made accord­ing to existing IALC norms, she said, and had been unanimously approved in advance by the IALC steering committee. It was a co­incidence that marriage was the main topic this year; the request would have been made in any event.

Dr Meyers also noted that the Episcopal Church’s request con­formed to the Windsor report’s recommendation that “provinces engaged in discernment regarding the blessing of same-sex unions [should] engage the Communion in continuing study.”

The other version of this same meeting was in the Church of England Newspaper and was written by George Conger. This version includes bits like this:

...While some members of the IALC, including its new chairman, Canadian-member the Rev. Dr. Eileen Scully, were generally supportive of the US view, the majority were not. One participant told CEN the objections fell in two general groups: those who believed the concept of same-sex blessings was un-Biblical, and those who were perturbed by the “aggressive” push by the US team to seize control of a study process on rites for traditional marriage to include their own agenda...

Seize control of a study process? The SCLM requested a separate session for their presentation, which would not be part of the "study process" of marriage rites. We were told that it was a coincidence that marriage was the main topic of the IALC this year. The request for the special session by the SCLM would have been made anyway, regardless of the main topic, in order to accomplish the work they were charged to do before GC 2012.

One wonders who this anonymous participant was that told Conger that some were "perturbed" by the Americans' "aggressive push" to "seize control of the study process." If that participant was paying attention, they may have noted that there was a "special session" on the agenda, approved by the IALC steering committee.

It all seems a bit strange, until Conger quotes someone who is not anonymous, as a matter of fact, one who loves the lime light; none other than Frank Lyons, the Bishop of Bolivia.

Yeah, THAT Frank Lyons...the Pirate Bishop of Bolivia! The same Frank Lyons who has plundered a quite a few Episcopal parishes over the years.

In case you still don't recall Lyons, here's just a bit from the 2006 news story that is linked above:

...Lyons, a Wheaton College graduate, is emerging as a rallying figure for conservatives in the Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopal Church. Saying the leadership has turned its back on these people, he is offering a haven to grateful parishes but angering church leaders who accuse him of using the denomination's divisions to promote himself.

His parishes, not wishing to separate from worldwide Anglicanism, turned to Lyons, an American who supervises four churches in Bolivia. Eventually, they plan to establish their own leadership.

Lyons has embraced what some congregations call "the Diocese of Bolivia's Northern Deanery" with zeal. In defiance of U.S. bishops, he ordains priests, lays hands on the sick and shrugs off complaints that his actions contravene church law and common courtesy. He ignores letters from other bishops asking him to stay out...

So, we have one story which quotes Dr. Ruth Meyers, Professor of Liturgics at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, and another which quotes Frank Lyons, the pirate Bishop of Bolivia.

Based on that point alone, the source of the quotes, which story would you take more seriously?

J.

Repenting of the Sin of Racism

A Service of Repentance and Reconciliation was recently held at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Here's an excerpt from a news report regarding the event:

...Although no one knew them personally, 38 slaves and servants of African descent who were buried in the cemetery at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in the 1700s and 1800s, many without their full names being recorded, were remembered Wednesday during a service of repentance and reconciliation at the historic church on Rector Street...

...“We as Christians have on occasion treated other people as property and people to be dispensed with,” said the Rt. Rev. George E. Councell, Bishop of the Diocese of New Jersey, during his sermon in the two-hour service before an overflow audience of Episcopal church members and residents from throughout the state. “We don’t even know their names for Christ sake. But they are here somewhere.”

Councell said it diminishes them not to know their names and to have buried them in common graves.

“They are one with us,” said Councell...

Let us pray:

O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us
through Jesus your Son: Look with compassion on the whole
human family; take away the arrogance and hatred which
infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us;
unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and
confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in
your good time, all nations and races may serve you in
harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen.

J.

Sound Familiar?

I ran across an interesting news story today. For fun, I'm going to quote some of it, but will leave out any dates and a few proper names, to see if you can guess when these events occurred.

I'll wait for awhile, and then add the link to the article, so you can see how close your date matches the facts:

...All went well until the early ****s when a rift began to appear within the congregation over the interpretation of theological teachings and doctrine.

Some wanted to relax what they saw as the old 'high church' practices and others wanted to maintain the status quo.

In **** the issue came to a head and in an attempt to settle the matter the Wardens, led by Ezekiel Taylor, locked the church to both groups.

The dissenting group then met at the Free Meeting House and the others chose Dunlap's Hall on Main Street.

At about the same time as dissent was growing within the congregation of Saint George's Episcopal Church in Moncton, a similar movement was underway in the United States under the leadership of Bishop *******. He and his followers formed a new church called the ******** ********* ******, and the Moncton group wrote to Bishop ******* asking that a clergyman be sent to Moncton to lead them. By January **** Saint Paul's ******** ********* Church was established in Moncton.

Within a few weeks plans were made for a building and two lots were bought from James Robertson and J. & C. Harris on the northeast corner of Victoria and Botsford street.

The cornerstone was laid Oct. 11, **** and the church was dedicated three days later. A Sunday school building and rectory were built later on the site.

A large number of parishioners left the congregation of Saint George's Episcopal Church to join the new church...

...At first the new church flourished and continued to do so until the early ****s, despite it being far removed from other similar congregations.

However, by June **** the congregation had dwindled to a few persons as families moved, children left home for other locations and senior members died.

Services were discontinued and the church closed.

BTW, St. George's, mentioned in the article, is erroneously identified as St. George's "Episcopal" Church...it is located in New Brunswick, so it is obviously St. George's "Anglican" Church.

The breakaway church eventually closed its doors, but the original church, St. George's, is still alive and well:



Ok, what are the dates for the split at St. George's Anglican Church?

J.

UPDATE: The article can be found here. The split happened in 1876, and the new congregation was indeed part of the Reformed Episcopal Church. The Bishop from the United States that they contacted was George David Cummins, founder of the REC.

What I found interesting about the article was that by changing a few dates and a few names, this could easily be a current article about some ACNA congregation. The pattern is the same.

However, it was surprising that the Warden (not the Rector or the Bishop) locked both groups out of the church! Obviously that was an era in which Wardens had more authority than they do in this day and age.

Scots and Canucks and Yanks...Oh My!

The conversations about the Anglican Covenant continue. However, we do have a few more "official documents" to consider now.

For instance, on June 9, the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church accepted a process for considering the Covenant as outlined in a Paper from the Faith and Order Board.

...General Synod 2012 - The Synod would be invited to debate the substance of the Covenant culminating in a motion approving adoption of the Covenant “in principle”. This would not represent the final decision of the Church on the matter but rather would be a means of the Synod expressing at least a preliminary view on the merits of adoption or otherwise. Were such an approval “in principle” to be given, a further motion could be proposed to Synod inviting it to instruct the Faith and Order Board to prepare the necessary canonical material. If the “in principle” motion fell, it would seem that there would be no point in continuing with any further process...

If approved, the canonical material would have to be passed with two readings at Synod, putting any final determination off until General Synod 2014. The other possibility is that the Covenant idea is simple dropped at the 2012 Synod.

So, for the Scottish Episcopal Church, even if they agree "in principle" with the idea, the earliest any final decision can be made on the Anglican Covenant is 2014...three years from now. As we have learned, a lot can happen in three years.

Then, after a slight delay, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church released the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons Report, which is one document that will be used by the D020 Task Force to develop a recommended response to the Anglican Covenant for consideration at the 2012 General Convention.

From the SCCC Report:

...Section 4.2 would require substantial Constitutional and canonical action on the part of the Episcopal Church. It would purport to require the Episcopal Church to put into place “mechanisms, agencies, or institutions,” necessary to assure the compliance with the Covenant of all levels of the Church and respective dioceses. It further implies an expectation that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church be amended to empower the Presiding Bishop to become the Anglican Communion de facto compliance officer for the Episcopal Church, which would clearly exceed her present constitutional and canonical authority...

As Mark Harris suggests, since it appears that canonical changes may be required, the earliest prudent date for the Episcopal Church to approve a Covenant, if she were to choose to go that route, would be 2015...four years from now. Personally, I question if the all the canonical changes could be proposed by next General Convention, and envision the process to be more like that of the Scottish Episcopal Church...agree in principle, first reading of canonical changes and then second reading of canonical changes, making the earliest date 2018...seven years from now. A lot can happen in seven years.

Some parts in the Communion seem to be in a rush to decide on the Covenant one way or another. I'm not sure why. Does it matter if we take three, four or even seven years to approve it? Consider this segment of the Covenant:

4.2.8 -Participation in the decision-making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those Churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.
(emphasis added)

It seems to me that there is no rush. So, if the Covenant is such a "really big deal" as some would have us believe, who not slow down and take our time?

Now, finally, I hope you take a look at the report presented by the Governance Working Group for the Anglican Church of Canada. This paper makes quite a few points regarding why the Covenant idea is indeed a "really big deal," although they might characterize it as a "really bad idea." As with the other reports, they also note the necessity for canonical changes (meaning years down the road, even if approved "in principle"). Beyond that, the GWG doesn't hesitate to spell out some of the specific problems found within the Covenant.

Right away, the GWG makes this clear statement:

The Covenant is more than a statement of belief or intention; it is a legal document...

Read that slowly, then read it again. This isn't some kind of "can't we just get along?" presentation. It's not primarily a theological statement...it is a legal document...and a complex one at that. An extremely good reason to slow down and be careful, it seems to me.

Much that follows involves some detailed calls for clarity of language, which I'll leave for you to consider. But I do want to point out one of the problems that such of lack of clarity has already caused. Regarding the question of the authority the Covenant:

The relationship of the Covenant to the constitutional and foundational documents of a Church is a live issue in other parts of the Communion. The Church in South-East Asia has “acceded” to the Covenant, and issued a long preamble to its Letter of Accession which makes it clear that it contemplates that the Covenant will be superior to the internal constitutions of signing Churches...By contrast, the Church of Ireland has “subscribed” to the Covenant, and issued covering documentation which makes it clear that it contemplates that the Covenant will have no effect on its sovereignty or existing constitutional provisions, which will be superior to the Covenant. Obviously, these contradictory views of the Covenant’s constitutional function and relationship cannot both be correct...

Then, the GWG goes on to make an excellent point that I've not heard much about elsewhere:

...the Covenant does not contemplate any specific role for the laity. Of the four Instruments of Communion, only the Anglican Consultative Council has any representation from the laity—and the lay members do not form a majority of that Council, nor is their concurrence required for any decision by that Council.61 Nor is there any guarantee that there will be any lay members on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion which controls the process under section 4 of the Covenant.

The question therefore arises about whether the overwhelmingly episcopal nature of the decision-making process under the Covenant is compatible with the long-accepted constitutional role of the laity in decision-making in the Canadian Church...

The Covenant is extremely purple, yet the Spirit is color blind. Can I get an AMEN?

In section D; "Consequences of Not Adopting the Covenant," the GWG argues that signing or not signing will have no affect on membership in the Anglican Communion.

But, isn't the schedule kept by the Anglican Consultative Council the official membership list, from which Churches can be added or removed? Not, so, claims the GWG:

...the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council does not give it the authority to determine which entities are in communion with the See of Canterbury or are members of the Anglican Communion. The purpose of the Schedule to the Council’s Constitution is to identify how many members of the Council will be drawn from each group of the specified Churches (all of whom are members of the Anglican Communion). Indeed, there are entities which are not listed in the Schedule (and therefore do not have representation on the Council) even though they are undoubtedly part of the Anglican Communion.66

The footnote identifies these entities not listed in the schedule; the extra-provincial dioceses of Cuba, Bermuda, Ceylon, Spain, Falkland Islands as well as the Lusitanian Church.

So, if the ACC doesn't define who is a member of the Anglican Communion, who does?

The test for membership in the Anglican Communion was stated by the Lambeth Conference of 1930 (which pre-dates the creation of the Anglican Consultative Council after the Lambeth Conference of 1968) as follows:

The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces and regionalChurches in communion with the See of Canterbury.

The GWG's conclusion of the full impact of not signing the Covenant?

...A decision by a Church to adopt or not to adopt the Covenant has no effect on that Church’s status as a member of the Anglican Communion (or with respect to its membership in any of the Instruments of Communion)...

...Accordingly, it is not apparent that there would be any consequence to the Canadian Church if it makes a definitive decision not to adopt the Covenant, apart from the restriction contained in section 4.2...

So, there you go...reports from three churches, all who seem to be taking a very slow and cautious approach towards the Anglican Covenant; for good reasons, it seems to me.

However, it is safe to assume that even if the acceptance process slows or even stalls, that will not stop another process from unfolding. It's the same process used to transform the Windsor Report from a set of recommendations to a document claimed to have some legal status. As the Churches study and reflect on the Covenant, its implementation will steam right along, as if it were already law. Actually, the implementation has already commenced. Hopefully, such tactics will not hinder the slow and careful consideration of this cumbersome legal document.

J.

New Jersey Deputation Responds to the Covenant

From here:

...At the outset, many of our Deputation members object strongly to the use of the word "covenant" to describe what is essentially a multilateral contract between earthly churches and their designated representative bodies (the so-called Instruments), rather than an agreement between God and Humankind. They say that mis-using a theological principle smacks of puffery...

...Many are worried about the negative consequences of endorsing the Covenant. Among these consequences are the establishment of a new unnecessary hierarchy, the loss of diversity within the Communion, the loss of connection to churches that may not endorse the Covenant, destruction of the Anglican ethos, the forced abandonment of GLBTQ Anglicans, attenuation of the voice of the laity in the life of the Communion, and by putting decision-making in the hands of the Standing Committee, the hierarchical structure will reduce the incentive for churches with differing views to communicate one-to-one, as they do now. And finally, to the extent that representatives from The Episcopal Church may end up on the Standing Committee acting under Covenant Section 4.2, we may participate in being an instrument of oppression of another church within the Communion.

Yet, others are concerned that having passed on the Windsor report, there is a need to be affirmatively responsive to the continuing challenge of TEC polity by much of the Anglican Communion.

On balance, we believe that The Episcopal Church should continue to be free to respond to its own discernment, through its own established polity, of God's will. There are those among us that feel the adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant by General Convention would seriously hinder this freedom.

In our conversation, Deputation members repeatedly expressed our deep desire to remain in the Anglican Communion and strongly connected to its member churches in conversation and mission. To that end, we believe that any General Convention Resolution that declines to endorse the proposed Anglican Covenant should {re-)state this sincere desire of The Episcopal Church to remain in the Anglican Communion and strongly connected to its member churches in conversation and mission...

A solid statement, I'd say.

J.

The Roadster

This is my new 1997 SL 500 Mercedes Roadster.   The original owner only put 40,000 miles on it, so it is like new.

What's unique about it?  Well, let's start with the engine; a V-8, 5.0L, with 32 valves, four cams and variable valve timing.  It produces 315 horsepower and 347 ft-lbs of torque. 

The torque is the most unusual thing about this engine.  Torque is what accelerates a car, not horsepower.  As a comparison, the Ferrari 360 has only  275 ft-lbs  and the Porsche 911 Carrera has only 295 foot-pounds.

Add to this the 5 speed automatic electronic overdrive transmission.  Before 1996, the SL 500 had a four speed hydraulic transmission.  The new 5 speed is a much needed improvement, which, when combined with the high torque, keeps you plastered against the seat through all the gears when you punch it.

The high performance 4-valve quad-cam engine was made from 1990 - 1998. The 1999 - 2006 V8s have only the  three valve, single overhead cam  design, resulting in less power and torque.  So, if you want the best engine (not the watered down Daimler-Chrysler version), and the best transmission (not the boring 4 speed hydraulic, that hesitates before downshifting), the years to look for are the 1996, 1997 and 1998.  Did I mention the one I found was a 1997?

Ok, what else?  The hardtop comes off, and the convertible top comes up.  This particular car has a brand new rag top.  Oh, and the stereo is a Bose, designed to blast you out with the top down when cruising at 150 mph on the autobahn.

This particular car was the 40th anniversary version, of which I am told only 500 were made.  That really doesn't mean much, except for some fancy trim and decals, and little extras like a 6 disc cd changer. 

And the best feature, it was cheap.  Really cheap, as in less than a fifth of it's original $90,000 price tag when new.

Ok, time to go for a ride!

J.

Anglicanism Remixed

Province II Presents:

"Anglicanism Remixed: Embracing the Other, Our Traditions and the Future"

May 5-6, 2011, Doubletree Hotel, East Syracuse Sponsored by the Provincial Congregational Development Network Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.   Albert Einstein  Everything we read and hear tells us that we need to do something different - after all, we're not insane!  Province II presents an opportunity to look at what we do as Anglicans and what the future might hold Led by the Rev. Stephanie Spellers, assisted in workshops presented by provincial leaders, this will be an exciting opportunity to get tuned into a variety of new concepts designed to assist in strengthening one's skills in reaching out into our many communities to extend the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Registration is now available online - click here for more information and registration.  Read on to find out who the speakers are and what they will be doing. Featured Speaker and Conference Leader The Rev. Stephanie Spellers is the Cox Fellow and Minister for Radical Welcome at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston, where she founded The Crossing, an emergent worship gathering at the Cathedral by and for people usually held at the margins of mainline church life--especially young adults, seekers, the poor, gay and lesbian people and people of color. A consultant and workshop leader and a member of the Episcopal Church's Commission on Domestic Mission and Evangelism, she has traveled the country studying and supporting communities seeking to live into the radical welcome vision. Spellers earned her bachelor's degree in religious studies at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and holds master's degrees from Harvard Divinity School and the Episcopal Divinity School. Prior to her ordination, she served as a religion reporter at the Knoxville News-Sentinel in Tennessee. Rev. Stephanie Spellers and a host of experienced leaders will guide us on a practical, inspiring journey that explores:  Radical welcome and embracing the gifts of our changing cultural contexts Anglican traditions that prepare us to be church in the 21st century Emerging forms of Christian community that share the ancient gospel in fresh ways Radical Welcome: Embracing God, The Other, and the Spirit of Transformation Radical Welcome: Embracing God, The Other, and the Spirit of Transformation is at once a theological, inspirational, and practical guide for congregations that want to move beyond diversity and inclusion to present a vision for the church of the future: one where the transforming gifts, voices and power of marginalized cultures and groups bring new life to the mainline church. The book is based on two years of work and over 200 interviews with people in congregations around the United States--in urban, suburban, and rural settings, in the Northeast, South, Midwest, West, and Pacific Northwest--asking the question, How do we face our fears and welcome transformation in order to become God's radically welcoming people? Each chapter introduces a particular congregation and the challenges it faced, and lays out the theological underpinnings of tackling fears head-on and embracing change as a welcome part of community life. Bread for the Journey: An Online Companion to Radical Welcome: Download resources here! - Resources specifically designed to complement Radical Welcome, including downloadable 7-session book discussion study guides for leaders and participants, handouts, and resources to be used along with the book. Share with your congregation or ministry and travel even further along the road to radical welcome.

Leading the music and assisting with the worship will be Isaac Everett Isaac Everett is a musician, songwriter, and audio designer, and a frequent performer on piano, keyboards, and didjeridu. He began studying music in the Yamaha method at age 3 and studied classical piano music through elementary school. Switching to jazz at the age of 12, he attended NYU as a music student where he studied with Arturo O'Farrill, Frank Kimbrough, Joel Weiskopf, Philip Johnston, and Justin DelloJoio. He also earned a second degree in mathematics. Isaac is an artist-in-residence at the Church of the Epiphany, a company member of Storahtelling, and the co-founder of Transmission, an underground church in New York City. His two recent albums, Transmission and Rotation, weave pop, rock, acid jazz, and traditional liturgical melodies into a unique but familiar tapestry of urban spirituality. Both are available on Proost, iTunes, and Rhapsody.  He has just taken a position with The Crossing in Boston.   Isaac Everett has published The Emergent Psalter Many alternative and emerging church communities have begun exploring ancient music and liturgical traditions despite a lack of high-quality, published liturgical music which does not require (or even desire) an organ and a four-part choir. The Emergent Psalter provides that resource. Sheet music, including piano accompaniments, is available for free download at Church Publishing. Click here to go to Everett's web site and listen to some of this music.  You can also access a podcast of his featured work at www.isaaceverett.com/2009/06/29/emergent-psalter-podcast-episode-1/  Speakers from Anglimergent Click the image to go to the website Never heard of Anglimergent?  It is a relational network of Anglicans engaging emerging church & mission. (Bishop Protector, The Rt. Rev.Gregory H. Rickel, Diocese of Olympia). Anglimergent is a 'big tent' community of diverse Anglicans. "We are not a discussion forum 'about Anglicanism,' but 'an online community for Anglicans,'  learning from and with one another about the Anglican witness to the Christian Gospel, and our sharing in that witness." Four of the conference speakers are members of Anglimergent - Stephanie Spellers, isaac Everett, Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows and Carrie Schofield-Broadbent. "Social Media in the Church" Speakers The Rev. Carrie Schofield-Broadbent This workshop will look at different ways social media can be engaged in congregational life. From Facebook to Twitter, from Blogs to Podcasts - social media has a big place in our culture. What place does it have in our faith communities? We'll explore ways that individuals have benefited from using social The Rev. Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows media and also discuss some of its limitations and challenges. In keeping with our social, interactive theme- there will be plenty of opportunities to share, ask and connect!  Both speakers are members of Anglimergent. The Rev. Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows is the rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Syracuse and the Episcopal Chaplain at Syracuse University. Jennifer is an avid blogger and well connected with today's technology. The Rev. Carrie Schofield-Broadbent is the rector of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Liverpool, NY. Carrie is a devoted fan of Facebook but has yet to "tweet"! "Believe Out Loud" Neil Houghton Believe Out Loud is a national campaign to ident ify churches that are welcoming to LGBT people and willing to talk about it. Come to learn how Integrity is using this branding to establish Integrity / Believe Out Loud Episcopal Cong regations. The Episcopal Church, for all its progressive legislative movement at General Convention was the only mainline denomination without a LGBT welcoming congregation designation. Let's talk about how that can be rectified, some tools that may be useful to assess and progress, why it's important and how radical hospitality can help you grow your church. Neil Houghton is a Deputy from the Diocese of Rochester. He volunteered for Integrity at 5 General Conventions. He serves as Vice President for Local Affairs of Integrity USA and has presented workshops on Believe Out Loud in the Episcopal Church in each of the 8 domestic provinces of the Episcopal Church. He also serves as Chair of Oasis Rochester and is a member of the New York State United Teachers Committee on Civil and Human Rights and the National Education Association Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Committee. " How are They To Hear?" The Rev. Dr. Raewynne J. Whiteley Know the audience you are writing to. What are they hoping to hear from you? What would they find useful or informative? Find out what is important to them and address their needs in your newsletter each month. Include a photo or photos to make your newsletter even more appealing. Inserting a link in your article lets you track which topics attract the most interest. The Rev. Dr. Raewynne J. Whiteley has been Rector of St James, St James in the Diocese of Long Island since Jauary 2007. Born and ordained in Australia, she came to the US in 1998 for further study and stayed! She loves preaching: it has been a passion since she took her first preaching class at the age of 19; other focuses in ministry are education (both adults and kids), liturgy, and pastoral care. Prior to St James, she served in the US as Vicar of Trinity Episcopal Old Swedes Church in Swedesboro NJ; Associate at Trinity Cathedral in Trenton NJ, Trinity Church, in Princeton NJ, and the Episcopal Church at Princeton University; and in Australia as Assistant at the Anglican Parish of Charlestown in Newcastle and the Anglican Parish of Hunters Hill in Sydney. She completed a PhD in Homiletics from Princeton Theological Seminary in 2002; she also holds degrees from the University of Melbourne and the Australian College of Theology. She has published two books, Steeped in the Holy: Preaching as Spiritual Practice   and Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog, edited with Beth Maynard, as well as numerous articles and papers. Her workshop reflects the concern we have as angicans: how can we speak the gospel with words, both in the liturgical context and outside it? .At the core of our Anglican tradition is the dual emphasis on word and sacrament. Sharing meals is something that is easy to adapt to new contexts; sharing words seems to be more problematic for us.  In a world where postmodernism has reshaped the ways we understand truth, authority and authenticity, and technology has changed the ways we communicate, is there still room for speech? And how can we speak so that others can hear? "Evangelism Beyond the Walls" The Rev. Terry L. Martin The Rev. Terry Martin has served within the Diocese of New Jersey since 2003. Prior to that, he worked with congregations in California and Wisconsin. In 2008, he was called as Program Officer for Evangelism at the Episcopal Church Center. In 2010, he became the Rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Waretown, New Jersey. He continues to accept requests to speak on evangelism at Episcopal gatherings. His personal history is unusual for an Episcopal priest. As a homeless teen, Martin was eventually placed in a reform school. Upon graduation, he enlisted in the Navy. After four years of service, Martin worked as a mechanic and a shipping clerk while pursuing his college education at night.  He graduated with honors from both the University of Wisconsin and Nashotah House and was ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church in 1990.  He is best known as "Father Jake," the pen name he used on his popular blog, "Father Jake Stops the World." Martin believes that Episcopalians need to turn their attention toward those who are outside the Church. "In the recent Pew Forum survey, we learned that 92% of Americans believe in God. That is astounding! There are some great conversations just waiting to happen beyond the walls of the Church. It is time to end our preoccupation with internal squabbles and begin to look outward. "How do we engage in spiritual conversations beyond the walls of the church? That is the question this workshop will attempt to address. We will review evangelism techniques used in previous generations, and explore why they don't work very well today. Through various group exercises, we will begin the development of new models for evangelism that might be more effective within your cultural setting. Conference Schedule Click the image to check the website Thursday, May 5 10 - 11:30 Registration 11:30 -12:45 Luncheon 12:45 - 2:30 Plenary (Spellers) 2:30-3 Break 3-5 Workshops...Each registrant will be able to attend two of the four workshops 5 Hospitality 5:30-7 Dinner 7-8 Bishops' Presentation Click the image to check the website 8:30 Worship Friday, May 6 8:30 Eucharist 10-11:30 Plenary (Spellers) 11:30-12:45 Luncheon 12:45-1:30 Liturgics workshop, in plenary right after lunch 1:30-3 "Open Spaces"

Does this look interesting?  

Register here.

J.

Rest in Peace, Dear Bishop

The Rt. Rev. Richard L. Shimpfky, Second Bishop of the Diocese of El Camino Real, entered into the nearer presence of our Lord on February 28, 2011. The announcement can be found here:

...The celebration of his life will be held March 12 at Christ Church, Ridgewood, NJ at 11:00 am where Richard served as rector before he was elected bishop. Bishop Mark Beckwith of the Diocese of Newark will officiate.

El Camino Real will have a memorial service at Trinity Cathedral at a later date to be determined.

Cards may be sent to Mrs. Jamel Shimpfky at 42 Kira Lane, Ridgewood, NJ 07450...

Richard was my Bishop for many years. He stood by me, and held me up, during a very difficult time in my life. He was a wonderful pastor and dear friend. I will miss him.

Into your hands, O merciful Savior, we commend your faithful servant Richard. Deal graciously, we pray, with all who mourn.

Father of all, we pray to you for Richard, and for all those whom we love but see no longer. Grant to them eternal rest. Let light perpetual shine upon them. May his soul and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

Amen.

J.

Swim the Tiber if You Must, but Leave the Keys Behind

By now you have heard all about the English Ordinariate, through which Anglicans unhappy about women's cooties contaminating the episcopate can join Rome. We briefly discussed this development over a year ago.

Regarding the latest news connected with this matter, Thinking Anglicans points us to an interesting speech offered by the Bishop of London. Here's the bit I find quite curious:

...There does however seem to be a degree of confusion about whether those entering the Ordinariate like Bishop John might be able to negotiate a transfer of properties or at the least explore the possibility of sharing agreements in respect of particular churches. For the avoidance of confusion I have to say that as far as the Diocese of London is concerned there is no possibility of transferring properties. As to sharing agreements I have noted the Archbishop of Westminster’s comment that his “preference is for the simplest solutions. The simplest solutions are for those who come into Catholic communion to use Catholic churches." I am also mindful that the late Cardinal Hume, whom I greatly revered, brought to an end the experiment of church sharing after the Synod’s decision of 1992 because far from being conducive to warmer ecumenical relations it tended to produce more rancour...
(emphasis added)

Does all this sound familiar? It should. The Episcopal Church has been dealing with such strange situations for some time now.

It will be interesting to see how Anglicans in other places deal with disgruntled former members who attempt to run off with the silver.

J.

The "Real" Account of General Synod

Provided by Dave Walker's rough notebook scribbles.

Questions:

1. Why was Riazat wearing ear muffs?

2. Was the flare bearing woman in the procession initially treated as a terrorist?

3. Why was your Bishop looking over your shoulder instead of being in the procession?

Best line:

"The Queen was there but I didn’t draw her. It’s probably treason or something."

J.

"Relational Consequences" Revealed

The General Synod of the Church of England is in session this week. On Wednesday, they will consider adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant.

Leading up to that consideration, there are numerous commentaries and discussions being offered regarding the proposed Anglican Covenant. Earlier this month, we briefly discussed it here.

As I wade through all these words about the Covenant, I keep finding myself coming back to the same nagging concern. Regardless of the reassurances being offered by the experts, I cannot see how anyone can read the actual text of that document and claim that it is not intended to create a mechanism which will trigger punitive actions against various Churches within the Communion.

Let me try to briefly show you what I'm talking about. Let's start with just one small piece of section four of the final text of the Covenant:

4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant...

"Relational consequences"...an unusual description. It is much kinder and gentler than the legalistic language found in earlier drafts. But does the changing of the description actually represent a different intent?

"The Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to the relational consequences..." To my ear, that still sounds much like something my mother might have said in a moment of exasperation; "You just wait until your Father gets home!" That meant, of course, that she would "make recommendations" to my Dad, resulting in me being grounded (a relational consequences impacting my interactions with my peers) or being sent to my room (a relational consequence impacting my interactions with my family and my peers).

But, maybe I'm just being paranoid? Maybe "relational consequences" doesn't just sound like a kinder description, but is indeed intended to reveal a more compassionate approach to discipline?

To find out more about these "relational consequences, let's consider the commentary provided by the Covenant Working Group:

...A further question has concerned the “relational consequences” which may follow a declaration of “incompatibility with the covenant”. A reality which has to be acknowledged is that if there is autonomy of governance in the Churches of the Anglican Communion, then a necessary corollary of this is that the autonomy of a Church’s relationships of Communion also cannot be constrained. What the covenant seeks to do is to find an ecclesial framework by which a common response to tensions can be discerned and articulated. This contrasts with the present situation where no agreed mechanisms for action exist, and this lack has seriously threatened the integrity of the Communion. What the relational consequences might be were explored by the Covenant Design Group in their meeting in Singapore in September 2008, and were set out in the Lambeth Commentary at page 25. There they were deliberately listed in a range from the lightest “no action”, to the most serious “breaking of ecclesial communion and walking apart”...

So, we are told that the specifics of what these "relational consequences" might be are found in the Lambeth Commentary. It's quite the list:

With respect to relinquishment - we wish to re-conceive this issue in terms of `relational consequences`, namely those consequences which might affect elements of ecclesial relationships within the Communion. Such relational consequences will depend on a number of factors, for example, the gravity of the issue and the response of the Church(es) involved. These relational consequences might include:
• a determination that no action may be necessary
• a request to enter a process of informal dispute resolution (such as mediation, arbitration and reconciliation)
• a request for self-restraint or remedial action or renunciation of the action
• an offer to register a conscientious objection
• warnings about the effects of a covenant breach
• a request to examine conscience about participation in roles formally representing the Anglican Communion
• a request to resign from roles formally representing the Anglican Communion
• non-invitation to the Lambeth Conference
• a request not to attend a particular meeting of an Instrument of Communion
• suspension (or termination) of voting rights in the Instruments of Communion *
• suspension (or termination) of participation at meetings of the Instruments of Communion *
• removal from the ACC Schedule of Membership *
• removal of signatory Church from covenant list *
• declaration that the actions of the Church(es) involved are/would be incompatible with the faith, unity and/or mission of the Communion *
• a recommendation to other Provinces of the Communion about their relationships with the Church to which the consequence applies
• a request to the Provinces to respond individually to the situation of the non-complying Church(es)
• breaking of ecclesial communion and a walking apart

I would suggest to those who are stridently claiming that this document is not "punitive" to carefully consider the above list of "consequences." Specifically, note that twelfth one: "removal from the ACC Schedule of Membership." Thats not getting grounded or sent to your room. That's getting kicked out of the house.

Now, everyone knows that many of the things going on in North America are also happening in England. The English are just not as transparent about it. So, it is not a stretch to envision, if this Covenant is approved, that the day may arrive when the Church of England would face "relational consequences" resulting in being removed from the Schedule of Membership. An Anglican Communion without the Church of England. Imagine that.

For more information regarding this troubling document, go visit the No Anglican Covenant Resource Page.

J.

Diocese of Uruguay Breaks from Southern Cone

From the Anglican Communion News Service:

One week after a proposal to allow dioceses to individually permit women's ordination to the priesthood was turned down by the Tenth Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone, the Diocese of Uruguay has voted to seek another jurisdiction with which to share its ministry...

...The diocese requests that permission for transfer from the Province take place within the year and that if this is not possible an appeal would be made to the Anglican Consultative Council to arrange for oversight, following Provincial canons. Uruguay has been a diocese within the Southern Cone since its formation in 1988.

Well, well, what have we here? The Province of the Southern Cone, notorious for the attempted theft of various North American dioceses, now has one of their own following their Provincial precedent. Imagine that.

It's going to be interesting to watch whay happens in Uruguay now, for a few reasons:

1. Given their history of raids on North American dioceses, it would seem impossible for the Southern Cone to now make the argument that a Diocese cannot leave their Province. If they do, their hypocrisy will be revealed.

2. In light of the recent ecumenical sanctions placed on the Southern Cone for cross-border interventions, it is doubtful that any other Province is going to rush to pick up Uruguay, as they will then open themselves to similar sanctions.

3. Since the presenting issue is women's ordination, there might be a few Provinces tempted to rush in to the aid of Uruguay, in the name of justice, equality etc. I think that would be a big mistake, as it would give some credence to the previous irregular, if not downright illegal, actions of the Southern Cone. If it was wrong for the Southern Cone to pillage North America, then we have no right to interfere in Uruguay.

J.

Diocese of New York Resolution Condemns the Institute on Religion and Democracy

From the Anglican Examiner:

RESOLVED, That the Diocese of New York affirms the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which includes the right of churches to choose their own clerical and leaders according to their own rules and criteria without interference from governments, private citizens, or other religious groups, and
RESOLVED, That the Diocese of New York condemns those activities of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) and related groups that have sought to punish the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and United Methodist denominations for leadership choices with which they disagree through seizure of church property and other assets entrusted to the community for mission and ministry; and
RESOLVED, That the Diocese calls upon the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to authorize creation of a joint task force of the affected denominations to:
1) Assess the threat to religious freedom posed by the activities of the IRD and related groups
2) Develop recommendations to mitigate such threats, and
3) Ascertain the cost to the three denominations to date of litigation to prevent the alienation of church property and other assets.

Explanation: For nearly 30 years, IRD has publicly stated its goal of “reforming” the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and United Methodist churches along “orthodox” lines, even though it is not accountable to any of those churches. Each denomination has produced films, documentaries, and exposés about IRD’s damaging activities, but each continues to treat the problem as internal discontent rather than a coordinated assault on religious freedom. This approach has resulted in costly litigation in all three denominations. A joint task force is needed to share information and develop common strategies to safeguard the freedom and financial health of the three target denominations.

You don't remember the IRD? Check out this report, or review Jim Naughton's Following the Money.

If you want a shorter version, here's a summation, from the specific perspective of an Episcopalian.

Keep in mind that most religious fanatics are Theocrats, or Dominionists, with their goal being to make their brand of religion the law of the land. Most Anglican Dominionists will never publically admit to their ultimate goal of making the United States into a theocracy. Such matters are discussed only when they are alone with their own kind. This makes it rather difficult to track such troubling ideas. However, it does not make it impossible.

The most extreme form of Dominionism is "Christian Reconstructionism," which strives to incorporate all 613 laws from the biblical code into secular law. That would include capital punishment for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, and sorcery. R.J. Rushdoony, author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, is credited as the founder of this particular sect.

One of Rushdoony's most devout followers was Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a reclusive millionaire from California. Ahmanson served on the Board of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Institute for 23 years, and was at his bedside when he died.

Howard Ahmanson, and his wife Roberta, became members of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, California. The rector of that parish was Canon David Anderson.

In 1995, the American Anglican Council was formed, in response to certain developments within The Episcopal Church. It was funded primarily through a group of large donors, of which Ahmanson was one. Ahmanson's support was considered so important to the AAC that there was some discussion about including his name in the letterhead of their stationary. Internal memos revealed that the leadership of the AAC were willing to do almost anything to keep Ahmanson on board. Soon after that, Ahmanson's rector, David Anderson, became President and CEO of the AAC, a postion he still holds today.

The AAC moved into an office in Washingtom DC with another organization, the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Dianne Knippers, President of the IRD, was the original treasurer for the AAC. Roberta Ahmanson served on the board of the IRD.

The IRD has a long history of anti-communist activity, especially during the Reagan era. At one point, the rhetoric from Knippers resulted in the erroneous identification of a group of missionaries in Nicaragua as being a communist front. Their clinics became targets for terrorists.

The primary goal of the IRD is to replace the leadership of the mainline churches with their own conservative leaders. A reading of some of their material makes it clear that they continue to be active players in the Religious Right, and are very clearly of the Dominionist mindset.

Now that the IRD and the AAC were, for all intents and purposes, one organization (sharing board members, wealthy donors and the same mailing address) they began to focus on tearing down The Episcopal Church. After this alliance was formed, one of their early moves was to launch a smear campaign against Gene Robinson, who had just been elected as bishop of New Hampshire. In 2003, Ahmanson gave the IRD funds for this campaign, which was launched by Fred Barnes, a member of the IRD's board, Fox News commentator, and a member of Falls Church. Robinson received the necessary consents in spite of the IRD's efforts.

Such techniques were used against the leadership of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches as well. Eventually, the outrage expressed towards the IRD by a number of people within the mainline denominations was cause for the AAC to distance themselves from the organization. They set up their own office in Atlanta. It is also worth noting that Ephraim Radner, affiliated with the Anglican Communion Institute, also resigned from his seat on the IRD board, which he had occupied for many years.

The American Anglican Council, which the IRD helped create, was made up of the same core group that became the Network, which then morphed into the shadow province now known as ACNA.  Same names, same goal; to destroy The Episcopal Church by any means necessary. 

David Anderson became a Bishop of the Church of Nigeria in 2007.

The IRD continues to attempt to have an impact within TEC, with limited success.


Here endeth the summary.

Well done, New York!

J.

Cameron and Fellows Discuss the Covenant

Last week, I pointed out the heated language and misinformation applied by Bp. Gregory Cameron towards those opposing the proposed Anglican Covenant. Last Sunday, the BBC offered a discussion between Bp. Cameron and the Rev. Lesley Fellows, moderator and Church of England convenor of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition (the discussion begins about 24 minutes into the program).

Bp. Cameron makes no mention of the "ecclesiastical BNP" or "Little Englanders," and, instead, seems to attempt to backpedal from his initial bombastic outburst. Lesley offers an excellent summary of why all Anglicans should be wary of the proposed Anglican Covenant. It is a very civilized discussion.

Here is Mr. Catolick's impression of the Cameron-Fellows discussion:



J.

Bishop Cameron Lashes Out Against Covenant Opposition

From a letter by the Rt. Rev. Gregory Cameron, Bishop of St Asaph, in the Church Times:

There was a very curious document in last week’s Church Times (full-page advertisement, page 7). In it, two organisations, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, for which I have formerly had the highest regard, turned themselves into the nearest to an ecclesiastical BNP that I have encountered.

They resort to the old tactics of misinformation and scaremongering about foreigners and outside influences to whip up a campaign against the Anglican Covenant, and replace reasoned argument with a “Man the barricades!” mentality that is little short of breathtaking...

Later in the letter, he also refers to those leading such opposition as "our latter-day Little Englanders." For those unfamiliar with that particular slur, here is one definition; "...a term now applied to English people who are regarded as xenophobic and/or overly nationalistic and are often accused of being ignorant and boorish."

Ecclesiastical BNP? Misinformation and scaremongering? Latter-day Little Englanders? My, my, the good Bishop seems to be quite upset.

Let's take a closer look at the Bishop's accusation of those opposed to a Covenant resorting to "scaremongering and the misrepresentation of a text." In fact, to avoid any charge of "misrepresentation," let's look at the actual text of the proposed Anglican Covenant. Specifically, let's focus on a part of Section Four:

(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.

(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”.

(4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations.

(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.

The language has been softened from earlier versions, but the impact remains the same. This is a mechanism for "limiting" or "suspending" a Church's participation in the Instruments of Communion. Note that anyone who chooses not to sign on to this Covenant will be barred from any participation in the work of the Standing Committee or the Instruments in regards to the process presented in Section Four.

Bishop Cameron points out that the Standing Committee only has the authority to "make recommendations." Well, of course. They will "make recommendations" to the Churches or the Instruments, who will then act on those recommendations. We've seen this before. The Archbishop of Canterbury, acting on the "recommendations" found in the Windsor Report, removed the Rev. Katherine Grieb of TEC and Bishop Tito Zavala of Chile from the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order. The "recommended" moratoria had became law, once an Instrument of Communion chose to act on them.

Now, in the instance above, Canterbury seems to have ignored the process put forward by the Covenant. He acted without recommendations from the Standing Committee. However, the process seems to give us a foretaste of a post-Covenant Communion. The Instruments receive recommendations, and then act on them, as they see fit. Note that if you opt out of the Covenant, those actions will be decided without you being in the room.

Bishop Cameron wants to assure us that we don't have to accept the recommendations of the Standing Committee ("Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations" 4.2.7). So, we reject the recommendations. Then what happens? The matter will still go before the Churches or the Instruments. And those taking "controversial actions" will be limited or suspended, regardless of our response to the "recommendations."

Bishop Cameron also notes that Section 4.1.3 of the Covenant states "mutual commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction." That is indeed the language. But, based on the later language of "limitations" and "suspensions," such a grand statement becomes meaningless, unless it is understood to say something along the lines of, "No, you don't have to submit. But if you don't, we may limit or suspend your participation."

None of this is news to Bishop Cameron, btw. He served as the former deputy secretary general of the Anglican Communion and secretary to the Covenant Design Group. For him to present the Covenant as a completely benign document, instead of the punitive tool it is clearly crafted to be, is cause to wonder exactly who it is that is engaged in presenting misinformation.

Let's be clear about what this Anglican Covenant is all about. There are those in the Communion who have demanded that The Episcopal Church be disciplined. Some leaders of various Churches have even gone as far as threatening to leave the Communion if TEC is not disciplined. Those who are making these demands are supported by a few extreme conservatives who were once part of TEC. These extremists have formed their own shadow Province, known as ACNA. Their goal is to get TEC removed from the Communion, so they can take her place. This is not "scaremongering" or "misinformation," for the record. The plans to replace TEC are well documented. The boot with which they hoped to kick TEC out of the Communion was the Anglican Covenant.

What these extremists did not anticipate, however, was for "border crossing" (i.e., theft of property from other Churches) to be included among the moratoria. As a result, many of the extremists are now less than enthusiastic about an Anglican Covenant. The weapon they helped fashion may just be turned on them, as has been seen in the case of Bishop Zavala (whom, I'm informed, has been elected as the next Primate of the Southern Cone. Congratulations or condolences, as the case may be, Bishop).

Use whatever snarky names you can imagine, Bishop Cameron, but, regarding the signing of any current or future Anglican Covenant, this is one Anglican whose response must echo that of Bartleby the Scrivener; "I would prefer not to."

If you share some of my concerns regarding the proposed Covenant, I commend to you this website: No Anglican Covenant Coalition.

And while you're at it, visit this page, and scroll down to the "question of the week" at the bottom of the article.

J.

Don Armstrong Makes a Deal

Don Armstrong, the former Episcopal priest who jumped to the Church of Nigeria the day before charges of theft against him were revealed, is in the news again:

...A Fourth Judicial District grand jury indicted Armstrong in May 2009 on 20 felony counts of embezzling $392,000 from Grace Church. Armstrong on Friday pled no contest to one felony count, according to El Paso County court files. Though Armstrong in his plea doesn’t admit guilt, the court views it in a legal sense as a guilty plea.

As part of the agreement, Armstrong admitted guilt to a new charge, misdemeanor theft, said Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut. A sentencing hearing on this charge will happen before the end of the year.

Armstrong’s sentence could include a fine of up to $5,000 and up to 18 months in the El Paso County Jail. Misdemeanor charges are brought for thefts between $500 and $1,000.

On the felony count, Armstrong has been placed on four-year’s probation. If violated, he will be a convicted felon and could face four to 12 years in prison, Thiebaut said. A restitution hearing will be held, probably in January, to determine how much money Armstrong must pay back to Grace Church....

The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado offers us a little more information:

...Larry Hitt, the Chancellor of the diocese, said that “We believe that Armstrong’s entry of a ‘no contest’ plea to a class 3 felony theft charge (deferred judgment and sentence) and his effective guilty plea to a class 1 misdemeanor theft charge constitute a tacit acknowledgment of the truth of the criminal charges against him. We hope that today’s action will contribute to a final resolution of these regrettable events. We pray for healing for all affected by his actions, including Armstrong and his family. We also hope that he will be sentenced to make full restitution of the money he took from the church.”

So, is this a "tacit acknowledgment" of the truth of the criminal charges? Not according to the members of his new church:

...In preparation for the now canceled trial we have become convinced even more strongly that controversies within the larger denominational church were the catalyst for the Diocese’s investigation and complaint, for the purpose of silencing our bold and successful defense of orthodoxy through our parish’s life, discipline, and teaching ministry...

...We further believe the disparity between the magnitude of charges made against Father Armstrong by the Episcopal Diocese and the final content of the plea agreement vindicates not only Father Armstrong, but also clearly affirms our confidence that we ran an effective and well managed church in our days at the helm of Grace & St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, and continue to do so at St. George’s Anglican Church...

Vindicates? Oh come on. How can these folks be so blind?

Perhaps we need to remind them of some of the details unearthed in the initial investigation:

.... In about March 2003, after Fr. Armstrong’s conversation with Ms. Ressler, payments for the educational expenses of Fr. Armstrong’s children ceased being booked as a Bowton Trust expense. Bookkeeper Alice Snere recalls that Fr. Armstrong instructed her in March 2003 to stop booking these expenses to Bowton and to book them to Anglican Institute or ACI as outreach expenses. He instructed her to transfer enough funds from Grace Church’s operating account to ACI’s operating account to cover the monthly payments for the children’s tuition and Jessie Armstrong’s car lease...

...Grace Church’s management provided to the parishioners a “2005 Outreach Report” itemizing the 2005 sources of funds for outreach (which it listed as “Receipts”) and the spending of funds (which it listed as “Disbursements”). Specifically, it stated that Grace Church disbursed “$40,116.00” for “Anglican Communion Institute.” That amount is the product of 12 months times $3,343, or the monthly payments Grace Church made to “Donald Armstrong - College Fund” during the 12 months of 2005 and booked to ACI outreach. The QuickBooks data for 2005 show no disbursements to ACI for the entire year...

The Pueblo District Attorney found items like the above as valid reasons to charge Armstrong with 20 counts of felony theft. 19 of them would probably be thrown out, because of the statute of limitations. So he pleaded "no contest" to one felony charge.

But, he admitted guilt to "misdemeanor theft." This is usually the charge when someone is caught shoplifting.

Now, if I was convicted of shoplifting, do you think my Bishop might step in and inhibit me immediately? You betcha. And rightly so. But, so far, we've not heard a word from Armstrong's Bishop, or the Church of Nigeria.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. What's a little petty theft to pillagers in purple shirts who regularly steal property, and do it in the name of God, no less.

Birds of a feather and all that.

J.